The IPKat

Passionate about IP! Since June 2003 the IPKat has covered copyright, patent, trade mark, designs, info-tech, privacy and confidentiality issues from a mainly UK and European perspective. Read, post comments and participate!

Royal baby under attack from cybersquatters

While cats tend to have their kittens in multiples and with surprising frequency, members of the British Royal Family produce their offspring only occasionally and at highly irregular intervals. Much interest has recently focused on a rare breeding pair, the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. To the great excitement of the world's media, this couple have outperformed pretty well every pair of pandas in captivity by producing a small, helpless but commercially valuable baby (such offspring is termed a "prince", of which a small number will metamorphose into a fully-fledged "king") within little more than two years of their nuptials. But the baby is in constant danger from the depredations of ruthless cybersquatters. Guest authors Simon Bennett and Rachel Cook (Fox Williams LLP) take up the tale:

While some people may have been camping out outside St
Mary’s Hospital, Buckingham Palace or Kensington Palace, and others were wondering
if there was anything else happening in the world, there were clearly some
people sitting by their computer waiting to press “send” on a domain name
application as soon as the baby’s name was announced.

In a cunning but unsuccessful attempt to avoid the attentionof the media, the Duke (left) and Duchess (right) picnic in Green Park while disguised as pandas

The name George Alexander Louis Windsor was announced on 24
July – which was bad news for the bookies with whom “George” had been the favourite. Since then, numerous domain names have
appeared with variations of the name or featuring “George”. Many are available for sale to the highest
bidder.

In the wake of the royal wedding and the Queen’s Jubilee, the
royal family has seen a surge in popularity according to the opinion polls, and
merchandise referencing the new third-in-line to the throne will be sought
after. Analysts have estimated that the
birth of the royal baby could be worth around £240 million to the economy. The Royal Collection Trust, shops on Prince
Charles’s Highgrove estate and the Middletons, through their business, are
selling royal baby-related goods. But is there any way for the Duke and
Duchess of Cambridge to control the use of their son’s name?

In the era before paparazzi, in the absence of photographers it was necessaryto resort to artists in order to portray the likeness of the royal offspring. Note the inescapable presence of the Kat ...

George Alexander Louis Windsor is not a registered trade
mark and, based on the current law, any application to register this name as a trade mark would be likely to fail. The name falls squarely within previous case
law relating to famous celebrities and characters, for example Tarzan and
Elvis. The strong likelihood is that the
public will not consider that memorabilia, mementos or a website featuring that name originate from one source, whether it be the royal family or a company
connected to the royal family. Even the
estate of the prince’s late grandmother, Diana Princess of Wales, failed in its
application to register her name for a wide range of goods and services as it
was not considered to indicate a trade origin (see Application of Executrices of Diana, Princess of Wales [2001] ETMR 25).

In the United States, trade mark law appears more accommodating. When Ivy Blue Carter was born, Jay Z and
Beyoncé applied to trade mark the name; similarly Kanye West and Kim Kardashian
are reported to be taking similar steps for North West. However, it could be argued that the royals
and by extension the royal baby are perceived as being more public property
than other celebrities, particularly those who present themselves as being a
“brand”.

The online marketplace is a difficult arena for companies and
celebrities in which to control their brand image. Embarrassment is one thing ,but there can also
be a more sinister aspect where cybersquatters use domain names for “phishing”
scams, impacting consumers and tarnishing a brand image.

Buying potentially squattable domain names up first is one strategy, but the potential for
variations, slight misspellings and the number of registries offering domain
names for sale will always limit the effectiveness and the bill for purchasing these dubious properties could be
endless, particularly as the new gTLDs are launched. Also, only the bigger brands can
realistically afford to have a team dedicated to monitoring this activity on a
daily basis – individuals or celebrities often will simply not know about a
cybersquatter or a problem until it is brought to their attention.

A celebrity will in theory be able to recover a domain name,
under the rules of domain name dispute resolution services of the relevant
registry, if it can be shown that:

*It/they had rights in the subject matter of the
domain name (whether registered or not),*the party that registered the domain name has no
rights or legitimate interest in the domain name,*the domain name was registered in bad faith;
and/or*the registrant has used the domain name to lure
internet users to its site to attract commercial gain.

However, there have been some high profile failures to
secure transfers. Sting, for example, failed to obtain transfer of sting.com. All the circumstances will be considered, including whether the domain name is being used for a legitimate purpose. Generally, the registrant offering to sell
the domain name for a substantial sum will point to bad faith -- but this is not
determinative. Also, if the registrant
has form (previous registrations of a similar type), then the chances of success
are higher.

In England and Wales, the Court of Appeal decision in One in a Million [1999] ETMR 61 held
registrations such as www.marksandspencer.com,
sainsburys.com and virgin.org were passing off and trade mark infringement. The basis for this decision was, however,
linked to the facts and the likely perception of any consumer, who it was
considered would link them only to the companies and not to the speculating registrant.

Lines of attack may not only be limited to passing off and
trade mark infringement. If a website
not only uses a name or word mark but also mirrors your website or uses your logos
and images, then you may be able to claim copyright infringement. The advantage of copyright is that the issues
will focus on whether a substantial part of the work has been copied, not what
the customer or internet user think when they reach the site.

Following
consultations with brand owners, ICANN has agreed to implement a service to
assist brand owners in response to the fact that the domain name registration
system is being opened up: soon there will be around 1,400 new gTLD domain
name registries. The Trade Mark Clearing House, launched on 26 March
2013, allows trade mark owners to submit their trade mark to ICANN’s database
for a fee, giving them the benefit of early notification of new top level
domains and, therefore, the chance to get in early. Also, any member of the public seeking to
register a domain name featuring a trade mark will be notified – although
cynics may consider they are likely to already know about this. Further, this will not help the Royal
couple if the Prince’s name is not registered as a trade mark.

As with all new services it will take some time to assess
how effective this proves in reality.

Ultimately, while early registration and vigilance are
important, the best form of defence may be to promote your website so heavily that, the more customers see it, the more likely they are to go to it directly
rather than relying on the services of a search engine. This
could help avoid instances of the public accessing the “wrong website”.

Royal baby under attack from cybersquatters
Reviewed by Jeremy
on
Wednesday, August 07, 2013
Rating: 5

The IPKat licenses the use of its blog posts under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial Licence.

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.